ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOROUGH OF NORWOOD<= /st1:City> – REGULAR MEETING

JULY 06, 2006

The Regular Meeting of th= e Zoning Board of Adjustment convened at 8:00PM with Chairman Trapani presiding. Mr. Trapani announced that this me= eting is conducted in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.

The following board membe= rs were present: Michael Casey, Chris= tofer Deschler, Marianne Orecchio, Robert Trapani, Carol Leeman and Nicholas Chiacchiaro. Murray Bass, Barbara Cho and Dan Kelly were absent from this mee= ting. Attorney Vincent Salvatore, Fort Lee, NJ was present at this meeting substituting for Board Attorney Richard Toniolo= .

Mr. Trapani announced tha= t this meeting is conducted in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act and indicated exit locations as required by law.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting May 04, 2006

Ms. Orecchio offered a mo= tion accepting the minutes of the May 04, 2006 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Deschler and all v= oted yes.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION

Correspondence – Zoning Official

Block 128, Lot 4 – 21 B= lue Hill

Paul Renaud came forward requesting that the board offer a zoning interpretation on the above-indica= ted property. He explained that t= he existing lot, part of subdivision approved in 1967, is undersized in frontage and Mr. Renaud asked that the board review and offer an opinion as to whether the a= pplicant should return to the board for formal variance (frontage) relief. At this time, the board granted Mr. Renaud a moment to review minutes of the 1967 Planning Board Meeting.

RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL

Application #06Z-0112

Block 145, Lot 9 – 27 Brook Street

B. Foschino Landscape, Inc.

Ms. Leeman offered a moti= on, seconded by Mr. Chiacchiaro, to adopt the Resolution of Approval as prepare= d by Mr. Toniolo. Mr. Casey, Mr. Deschler, Ms. Orecchio, Mr. Chiacchiaro and Ms. Leeman voted yes.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION, Continued

<= st1:address w:st=3D"on">21 Blue Hill Road<= /u>

Following Mr. Renaud̵= 7;s review of minutes from the February 28, 1967 meeting, he explained that the board = voted that evening to approve and sign the final subdivision map and developer’s agreement on the Blue Hill Subdivision. A copy of the map filed &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

PAGE TWO, JULY 06, 2006=

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; INFORMAL DISCUSSION, Continued

with the county indicates= that the indicated lot frontage in question is smaller than the

other parcels, all of whi= ch conform to the frontage requirement. Mr. Renaud asked the board for an opinion as to whether the variance granted at that time “grandfathered” and if approval currently = remains valid. The proposed dwelling = meets all other zoning criteria leaving the board to determine if the lot require= s a “frontage” variance. Following a lengthy discussion with comment and advice from Mr. Salvatore, the board agreed that the property is an existing non-conforming lot, as created by the Planning = Board in 1967, and includes the smaller front yard (Lot 4) as part of that subdivision. As long as the proposed structure meets all current zoning requirements, even though proposed dwelling is larger than the previous (demolished) house, the variance granted in 1967 is grandfathered and runs with the land.

The board moved, seconded= and voted to open the meeting to the public.

Councilman Michael Knigin= , 287 Summit Street, came forward and recommended that the board compel the developer to seek variance relief since the proposed structure is larger than the previous dwelling. In response to a qu= estion from Mr. Renaud, Mr. Salvatore advised that, although the board cannot prej= udge an application, the grounds for denial of a conforming structure are limite= d.

As no one else came forwa= rd, the board moved, seconded and voted to close the meeting to the public.

&n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; VARIANCE APPLICATION #06Z-0115

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Block 154, Lots 19 & 30 – Hettinger/Winkler

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; 921 Broadway & 89 Demarest= Street

Attorney Rose Tubito, Dav= id Watkins Law Office, Closter, NJ came forward on behalf of the applicants Mr. & Mrs. Winkler and Neil Hettinger.&nbs= p; A rather lengthy discussion took place questioning the reasons that = two separate lots, both requiring variances, have been submitted as one applica= tion and Ms. Tubito agreed to present each lot separately.

Michael Hubschman, LPE &a= mp; PP, Bergenfield, NJ, came forward, was sworn and qualified as an expert witness in engineering a= nd planning. Mr. Hubschman, by m= eans of the original site plan dated March 30, 2006 with revision date April 21, 2006, testified that Lot 19 is an existi= ng non-conforming (54’ x 100’) parcel fronting on Broadway located= in the R10 Zone. Lots in t= he surrounding area are mixed in size, both conforming and nonconforming; however, most pa= rcels in the area are similar in width to the subject property. Applicant proposes to construct a dwelling in keeping with the neighborhood, approximately 1,080 square feet = including three or four bedrooms and in compliance with the 20% lot coverage requirem= ent. = ; The lot is currently vacant and overgrown. Additional varianc= es required as follows:

Lot area 10,000 square feet required – 5,400 = square feet proposed

Front ya= rd 35 feet required – 30 feet proposed

PAGE THREE, JULY 06, 2006

VARIANCE APPLICATION #06Z-0115 Continued

Minimum = Sideyard 15 feet required – 10 feet proposed on south side = ; &n= bsp; Minimum Lot Frontage 100 feet required – 54 feet proposed

Mr. Hubschman additionally testified that, until several years ago, 10 feet was the required sideyard setback in the R10 Zone.

Ms. Tubito read correspon= dence into the record, marked as Exhibit A-1 (Lot 19) and Exhibit A-2 (Lot 30), to adjoining property owners’ offerering the lots for sale at the appraised market value of $450,000 for Lot 19 and $425,000 for Lot 30.

Mr. Hubschman additionally testified that from a planning standpoint and because the lot is nonconform= ing and undersized, it imparts a hardship on the owner. The proposed dwellings fits into t= he neighborhood and if the board does not approve this application, the lot may well remain overgrown and vacant since adjoining property owners express no interest in purchasing same. =

Lo= t 30 is also a pre-existing undersized 6,359 square foot lot (10,000 square f= eet required) owned by Mr. & Mrs. Winkler with Mr. Neil Hettinger the contr= act purchaser. The lot is irregular in shape with frontage of 34.6 feet and a 92-foot rear yard. Applicant proposes a 908 square fo= ot dwelling with a 35-foot front yard to match adjoining lots and a 20-foot fr= ont yard on Rivervale Avenue. Because the property is irregularly shaped, a (south) sideyard set back of 10 feet proposed where 1= 5 is required. Mr. Hubschman testi= fied that this lot requires a C-2 Variance and would remain undeveloped and over= grown if application were not approved. Although several lots across the street that were subdivided approximately ten years ago are 100’ x 100’, many lots in the surrounding= area are similar in size to the subject property.

In response to the board,= Mr. Hubschman testified that the properties involved were always two separate l= ots with separate deeds and tax bills. Mr. & Mrs. Winkler also owned Lot 29 and sold that property several years ago.

In order to clarify, Mr. Hubschman testified that the “new” variances are the front and sideyard(s) and that 21 feet separate the dwelling(s) on Lots 29 and 30. Pertaining to Lot 19, Mr. Hubschman testified that the proposed driveway offers a turn-around= providing safer egress onto Broadway. T= rees (page three - Lot 30) marked with an X are scheduled for removal; all trees= in the borough right-of way remain and the trees within the building envelope = on Lot 19 shall be removed. Mr. Hubschman agreed that the dwel= ling facing Broadway could be moved three or four feet; however, that also moves= the turn-around and a variance is still required. Mr. Salvatore commented in respons= e to the board, that should the board deny this appeal and applicant return with= a different proposal, variances would still be required.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ;

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; PAGE FOUR, JULY 06, 2006<= /o:p>

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; V= ARIANCE APPLICATION #06Z-0115, continued

The board moved, seconded= and voted to open the meeting to the public.

Zoning Officer Paul Renaud recommended that, should the board approve the Lot 19 variances, that they require the applicant to meet sideyard requirements= and center the proposed structure. As to Lot 30, he commented that t= he variances are rather intense in relation to neighboring property owners and their dwellings.

Candace & William Spo= sa, adjoining property owners at 938 Broadway, came forward and were sworn for their testimony. Mr. & Mr= s. Sposa spoke in opposition to this matter and recommended that the board deny this application, including both lots, and that the borough acquire the property and provide a park f= or residents. Some discussion to= ok place concerning Mr. & Mrs. Winkler’s ownership and subsequent an= d/or possible sale of the properties in question.

Dave Elling, 263 Summit Street came forward and questioned the location of the sewer line and its proximity to existing tre= es. Mr. Hubschman commented that trees= in the borough right-of-way remain in place and he stipulated to relocation of= the proposed sewer line on Dem= arest Street in order to protect existing trees.

Councilman Michael Knigin= , 287 Summit Street came forward and spoke in opposition to this application, over-development = in general and additionally noted that he has received complaints from residen= ts regarding the number of variances granted by the Zoning Board. Mr. Trapani commented in response = that the board hears each application on its own merit.

Neil Hettinger, 69 Demarest Avenue came forward and was sworn for his testimony. Mr. Hettinger testified that he is= the contract purchaser of the subject property and that Mr. & Mrs. Winkler’s financial well-being depend on the approval of and subseque= nt sale of the properties. A bri= ef discussion took place concerning traffic in the area and location of the proposed driveways. At this t= ime, Mr. & Mrs. Winkler’s affidavit of consent was provided to the Boa= rd Attorney for review.

As no one else came forwa= rd, the board moved, seconded and voted to close the meeting to the public.

Ms. Tubito commented that although the neighbors’ comments are appreciated, the board must now = weigh the positive and negative criteria for approval or denial of this application. Ms. Tubito, Mr. Hettinger, and Mr. Hubschman agreed to stipulate to board requirements concerning location of driveway(s), sewer lines, and/or position of the proposed structures and each additionally commented that the dwellings fit = into the neighborhood. Mr. Hetting= er also testified that zoning requirements, in particular the sideyard setback, changed at the beginning of the application process and some additional dis= cussion took place concerning the number of existing properties affected by the change(s).

PAGE FIVE, JULY 06, 2006

VARIANCE APPLICATION #06Z-0115, continued

Ms. Tubito requested that= the board vote on (one) application with two separate lots. Mr. Salvatore suggested that= Ms. Tubito amend the application into separate appeals, which might significant= ly change the matter as presented this evening perhaps requiring renotificatio= n of the public.

Following discussion, Mr. Casey offered a motion to bifurcat= e the application. No one seconded = the motion and a vote was not taken

Mr. Chiacchiaro offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Orecchio, that th= e matter be heard as one application. = Mr. Deschler, Ms. Orecchio, Ms. Leeman and Mr. Chiacchiaro voted yes. Mr. Casey and Mr. Trapani voted no= .

Mr. Salvatore commented t= hat although the application is one, both lots and variances might be voted on individually. The board discu= ssed the options as presented by the applicant and testimony concerning meeting negative and positive criteria for the public good.

Mr. Casey offered a motion to approve Application #06Z-0115 as presented with the exception of a Lot 19= adjustment to the north sideyard in order to meet the 15-foot requirement with a 12-fo= ot setback on the south side. De= nial of Lot 30 because the negative criteria outweighs the positive. Secon= ded by Mr. Deschler. Mr. Casey, Mr. Deschler and Mr. Trapani voted yes. Ms. Orecchio, Ms. Leeman and Mr. Chiacchiaro voted no. (Motion Denie= d)

VARIANCE APPLICATION #06Z-0118

Block 153, Lot 16 - Messina

<= st1:address w:st=3D"on">15 Everett Street<= /u> – R10 Zone

Frank Messina, owner of <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">15 Everett Street came forward and was sworn for his testimony.   Public notice reviewed previ= ously is in order and as required by law. Mr. Messina testified that he proposes to remove and replace an exis= ting front porch that requires a front yard variance (35’ required and 24.2’ proposed).   = The existing front steps are deteriorating and pitching towards the house. He described the proposed replacem= ent stairs as constructed with concrete and brick veneer and without overhang or columns but with a slightly larger landing. Photographs of a neighboring porch= at 31 Everett Street, similar to Mr. Messina’s proposal, were marked as Exhibit A-1.

The board moved, seconded= and voted to open the meeting to the public.&n= bsp; As no one came forward, the board closed the meeting to the public.<= /p>

Ms. Leeman offered a motion to approve Application #06Z-0118 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Chiacchiaro. Mr. Casey, Mr. Deschler, Ms. Orecchio, Mr. Trapani, Ms. Leeman and Mr. Chiacchiaro voted y= es.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           PAGE SIX, JULY 06, 2006=

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;    CORRESPONDENCE - NONE

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           DISCUSSION – MONOPOLE

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           Block 80, L= ot 8 – 480 Broadway

The board and Mr. Renaud discussed this matter, in particular installation of the Cingular antennae,= which is not in accordance with testimony provided during either the Zoning or the Planning Board hearings.   Although board members agreed that they do not wish to discuss the matter with either Cingular or Verizon unless an application is filed, an informational meetin= g is scheduled for August 03, 2006. Mr. Renaud also commented that although neither Cingular nor Verizon received f= inal approval, they are currently both operational. Councilman Knigin suggested a meet= ing between himself, Mayor Kaplan and Mr. Renaud in order to study and investig= ate legal options.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            =         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   OPEN & CLOSE TO PUBLIC

The board moved, seconded= and voted to open the meeting to the public.

Councilman Michael Knigin= , 287 Summit Street, came forward in order to express comments and concerns from borough residen= ts concerning the number of approvals the board has granted.   A lengthy discussion ensued = during which various ideas were offered by board members, Mr. Renaud, Mr. Salvatore and Councilman Knigin concerning zoning issues and the changes which took p= lace several years ago, in particular the 10- foot sideyard setback. Mr. Trapani suggested that those residents of town criticizing board actions attend meetings and voice their concerns in person.

As no one else came forwa= rd, the board moved, seconded and voted to close the meeting to the public and all voted yes.

Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting adjourned at 10:55PM.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;                  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;          Linda Grove, Board Secretary

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;